St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1887-10-24
ONLY ONE.
Decision OF a Long-Disputed Pa
tent Question.


WASHINGTON, Oct. 23.-The commits
sioner of patents has rendered an i'm
portant decision, settling in the mega
tive the lOng-disputed question. can All
applicant embrace in one and the same
application for letters patent more than
one distinct and separate invention?
The case III point was that of Austin
Herr, who applied for a single patent
covering both the machine and process
for separating garlic from wheat. The
following is brief synopsis of the conf
mlSSlOner'S decision:
The use of machine for the purpose for
which it was constructed is the thing en-
joyed under letters patent, but the machine
Itself is the thing patented. method or
process such as the law recognizes as Datent
able must have an existence independent of
the machine or apparatus by which /. is car
ried out. If the result is simply the act of
the mechanism itself, SO related that it can
not exist independently of it, and is the sole
utterance OF the machine, a process or
method does not exist-it is simDlv the func
ton of the machine. A process to be patent
able must be wholly independent of the ap-
paratus. The process is that which brings
INTO existence the product or result. 1t must
be regarded settled by the highest author
1ty that an apparatus and process are sepa-
rate and distinct Inventions
Relative to inventions covering COM
binations he says:
Whenever the original invention is sucb
that with its mutually cooperating parts il
retains distinctive character and identiit+
and improved parts have not become distinct
subjects OF invention, art or manufactures
such original and cooperating parts may he
empodled IN one patent. If the progress of
art has not Subdiyided such parts or ajerartc
into distinct and well-recogniZed subjects of
Invention and manufacture and they have
not been identified in the arts and industries
as representing distinct subjects, the improve
mentS can all be included in one Datent
The fact that the courts have held
valid patents covering a multiplicity
OF inventions forms no reason WHY the
patent office should continue to issue patents
comprehending distinct and separate inyen-
tons. While there is no statutory declara-
ton. congress has recognized distinctly and
clearly the natural classification of the arts
as existing III four great divisions and that a
single and distinct invention clearly belong
Ing IN one class ought not to be Joined ia the
same patent with an invention belonging to
another. The statute vests the commissioner
win large discretion in establishing proper
classlfcatlon OF invention, which discretion
mas been recognized and settled in numerous
decisions OF the courts. While patent NAV
not be null and void for the reason that it
embraces two inventions, this fact furnishes
no excuse why the principles which
underlle the patent system should
be disregarded. or the discretion of
the commissioner should not be exercised in
accordance with tnoSe principles. The law
requires that each invention shall be care
FULLY examined to determine its novelty and
usefulness. The examination must 90 back
as far as knowledge of the art extends. Ii
would be impossible to conduct with Ger
tainty and promptness the vast business com
mltteu TO the office in a systematic manner
examine the inventions of sc. 600. O0O of
people, survey the wide and extended field
OF art, and determine their novelty and use
fulness speedily and satisfactorily without
definite and settled rules governing the
natural and proper classification of patent
able subjects.